Terry v. Ohio Case: Protective Sweep, Frisk or Patdown

The Terry v. Ohio Case: Protective Sweep, Frisk or Patdown

The Terry v. Ohio case is one of the most important Supreme Court cases when it comes to understanding police encounters, protective sweeps, frisks and patdowns. This 1968 case established some ground rules that cops still follow today. Let’s break it down in simple terms.

Terry v. Ohio was a big case back in the 1960s. Basically, a detective named McFadden saw some dudez—Terry and his friend Chilton—walking back and forth in front of a store acting all suspicious. McFadden thought they were casing the joint to rob it, so he approached them, asked their names and patted them down. Turns out Terry and his buddy were packing heat, so McFadden arrested them for carrying concealed weapons.

Here’s the thing though – McFadden didn’t have a warrant or probable cause to stop and frisk them. He was acting on a hunch. So Terry and Chilton’s lawyers tried to get the guns excluded as evidence, arguing it was an unreasonable search and seizure. The case went all the way up to the Supreme Court.

The Supremes decided 8-1 that McFadden’s actions were ok. They said cops can stop and briefly detain someone if they have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, even without probable cause. And they can do a quick patdown to check for weapons if they think the person might be armed and dangerous.

This became known as a “Terry stop and frisk.” It lowered the bar for police encounters below probable cause. Now cops only need “reasonable suspicion” to stop someone and do a quick patdown for weapons.

Of course, what’s “reasonable” is open to interpretation. And these kinds of stops have been controversial over the years. Minorities get stopped way more often than white people. And a frisk can turn into a full-blown search real quick.

But the Terry case also set some limits. The court said patdowns can’t be overly intrusive. Cops can only do a light patdown of the outer clothing to check for weapons. They can’t go digging into pockets or anything like that without probable cause.

Terry also doesn’t give cops carte blanche to frisk whoever they want. The officer has to have a reasonable belief that the person is armed and dangerous before patting them down. They can’t frisk random, innocent people for no reason.

What About Protective Sweeps?

Ok, so Terry covers stops and frisks on the street. But what about protective sweeps? This is when officers sweep a building or house they just entered to check for dangerous individuals inside. Turns out the Supreme Court weighed in on these too.

In Maryland v. Buie, the court said cops can do a limited sweep of spaces near where an arrest goes down if they have reasonable suspicion that someone dangerous could be hiding nearby. We’re talking closets, spaces under the bed, stuff like that.

They don’t need probable cause or a warrant for this kind of cursory sweep. Reasonable suspicion is enough, just like with a Terry frisk. The idea is to protect officer safety after making a risky in-home arrest.

But Buie also said cops can’t search the whole dang house without probable cause. A protective sweep has to be quick and limited to spaces where a person could reasonably hide. Once they clear those spaces and secure the scene, that’s it. No rummaging through drawers or flipping over mattresses.

What’s the Takeaway Here?

The Terry and Buie cases give us a framework for police encounters, frisks and protective sweeps:

• Cops need reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to briefly detain someone on the street.
• If they also reasonably think the person is armed and dangerous, they can do a quick patdown of outer clothing for weapons.
• After arresting someone inside a home, police can sweep nearby spaces where a dangerous person could hide.
• But full searches need probable cause and/or a warrant. Police powers aren’t limitless.

Look, I get it. No one likes getting stopped and frisked. It’s invasive and can feel harassing, especially if you’re just minding your own business. But the courts have decided officer safety outweighs some privacy concerns here.

Terry and Buie try to strike a balance. Cops can take limited precautions to protect themselves and others, but they can’t go on unrestricted fishing expeditions without justification. Reasonable suspicion sets the bar higher than a mere hunch.

These rules aren’t perfect. But they’re the law of the land for now. As a civilian, it’s good to know your rights in these situations. And as an officer, it’s important to understand proper procedures and limits. Following the rules makes everyone safer in the long run.

The courts are strict about how Terry and Buie apply. If cops overstep, any evidence found may be excluded at trial. Then the bad guy could walk free. So while officer safety matters, so does following protocol and protecting people’s rights. It’s a delicate balance.

What do you think? Do Terry and Buie give police too much leeway? Or are they reasonable compromises? This stuff impacts all of us. So stay informed, know your rights, and stay safe out there. The streets can be dangerous for cops and citizens alike. Knowledge and cooperation help us all get home at night.